Politics – Page 10 – John Vincent

Budgets

You can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them. That’s budgets. Most of us budget even if we don’t write it down. I’ve got a certain amount in my bank account. If I spend more than is stamped at the end of my statement, then trouble may ensure. Not always given our modern dependency on credit. A problem arises only when spending gets out of control.

Mr Micawber cautioned about debt’s downside: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty-pound and six, result misery.” In his time, Charles Dickens was acutely aware of what unsustainable debt could do to people.

We’ve had weeks where the news media has created a landslide of content on a budget. The repetition of point scoring has got tedious. It’s way out of normal everyday human experience. I don’t know about you, but I can’t easily relate to a number like £1,226 billion[1]. Every year public expenditure totals numbers of that order. It happens. It’s real.

Today, our UK “billion” is a thousand million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by nine noughts. At one time in the past the UK “billion” meant a million million. That’s spelled out as a one followed by twelve noughts. That got dropped for the sake of international harmony.

I have used such numbers in lectures on aviation safety. To think, I often got people glazing over when I talked about ten to the minus nine per flight hour. That’s a billionth of something. A mighty small number. In these cases, a number denoting a probability of something happening.

So, here we are in October getting excited over a change of couple of hundredth of typical annual national expenditure. Not without reason. That figure sound like a small number, and it would be, if it wasn’t for the subject Dickens raises, namely debt.

Wisdom comes from learning from experience. Lessons learned are incredibly valuable. That’s not rocket science. Only we need to factor in how easily we forget bad experiences.

In terms of budgeting, recently two reckless politicians taught us a lot[2]. Truss and Kwarteng sound like a comedy double act or a dodgy back street lawyers office. Those two monster brains had the marvellous idea of borrowing more to give it away. In a short flash of genius what they did increased borrowing costs and spooked just about everyone.

Debt matters. Nation States are not like people, so the home economics analogies don’t stand up. However, borrow too much without being absolutely clear as to the answer for question like – who, what, where, when, why and how and the results are likely to be extremely unpleasant.

Let’s see if the day ends with a pint of beer being more expensive or not. Love them or hate them, budgets are not going away anytime soon.

[1] https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/public-finances/

[2] https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/truss-kwarteng-mini-budget-one-year

National Rejoin March: Unity for a European Future

The European Movement[1] has been around for 75-years. Yesterday, I was surrounded by a good number of their membership. That, and many Liberal Democrats. People, young and old, from communities up and down Britain. There were lots of people from the creative industries, so badly hit by Brexit. In fact, there were people of every political background marching through the streets of central London.

Everybody had gathered in central London with the aim of reversing the tragedy that is Brexit. I say “is” and not “was” because the disaster continues to have marked repercussions on everyday life. Reclaiming the freedoms that we once had has brought people together in large numbers.

On Saturday, pro-European campaigners made their way from Park Lane to Parliament Square for the third annual National Rejoin March (NRM)[2]. The weather smiled on the gathering. It couldn’t have been better in the light of torrential rain and the endless storms of past days. The sunshine and blue skies warmed my sprit.

The occasional chant of “Boll*cks to Brexit” has been replaced by Reset, Repair, Rejoin. As is the tradition of these events, posters ranged from the more obvious slogans, like #BinBrexit to the imaginative and sometimes bizarre. The group dressed in eye catching elephant costumes had a point to make. The elephant in the room being the protesters theme.

Standing next to me, one young lad asked his mate why he had decided to be on this rejoin march. I thought his response most was appt: “Because I want to be on the right side of history”. To me that just about sums it up. Brexit is an aberration. Eventually, after a great deal of to-and-fro the strong likelihood is that the UK will rejoin the European Union (EU), or its successor. Everything we know points in that direction. It may take a decade. It may take more.

The Labour Party won the 4^th July UK General Election, and while it pledged not to reopen the main parts of Britain’s deal to leave the EU, does claim to want a significant reset. So far, the indications are that this policy line is typical political rhetoric, and little more. But it must be said that this is the early days of a new British government. If their claim to want growth in the economy to fuel spending on public services is honest, they would be mighty foolish to discount rejoining the European Single Market.

Thousands gathered in London. This will go on year after year. The diminishing number of objectors, who chant from the sidelines, remind me of the “Dead Parrot Sketch”[3]. For all intents and purposes all the arguments for Brexit have perished, much like the poor parrot. Even when that’s an obvious fact there are still those few people who will defend it to the hilt. As we walked down St James’s Street a well dressed bloke in a side street seemed most agitated. Shouted abuses and ran off. I looked around. We all shrugged our shoulders. I certainly thought – what a sad man.

I’m sure Britain can reclaim its place in Europe. It will take resolve and continuous effort but, as has been pointed out, this campaign is on the right side of history.

[1] www.europeanmovement.co.uk

[2] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-call-uk-rejoin-european-154046221.html?

[3] https://youtu.be/vZw35VUBdzo

Last Night

Nice to see a flood of blue at the BBC PROMS last night. I’m not just talking about the wonderful Angel Blue[1]. I was not there. Watched the whole performance at home on the TV this year.

It’s great to hear that GB News went apoplectic. To quote: “The Last Night of the Proms has been swamped in controversy yet again after a sea of EU flags were spotted being flown by event-goers – despite imposing a ban on “protest flags” ahead of time.”

For one, there’s no controversy. For two, there was no protest flags. For three, there’s always all sorts of flags. Making up stuff is the sad habit of bored journalists with space to fill. If I can call them journalist. Click bait writers – now that’s just off-the-shelf hype makers.

Look. In a free country and let’s face it, that’s what the singing in the Royal Albert Hall is about. Land of hope and glory. If the this year’s BBC Prom goers want to hold up EU flags, it’s entirely up to them. No one is forcing them to do so. It wasn’t a mandate from on high.

I was disappointed not to see more flags. My experience of having been at the Last Night twice is that one fun thing to do is to figure out what some of the more obscure flags mean or where they represent. A Caribbean country, Devon, Cornwall, Isle of Man, or a remote Scottish Island. And lots of friendly countries, like the US. Well, dependent on the current presidential race.

Right-wing commentators often push a line that is prescriptive with respect to their opponents but take the view that they should be able to do whatever they like in the name of freedom. I believe that there’s no part of the right of politics that doesn’t hold this self-serving view.

It’s like the often-quoted view of the Conservative Party elite. They take the line that their people are born to rule. It’s not a joke. This week, it’s mighty interesting to read the reflections on recent events coming from Lord Brady[2].

The country is so incredibly fortunate now it has shaken off the fading embers of 14 years of Conservative Party misrule. Who knows what dreadful havoc would have ensued if they had retained power. It’s a much better autumn that might have been.

This is the time to re-think Britain’s relationship with our near neighbours. For a start, all aspects of unnecessary negativity and the dogma of Brexit need to be put asunder. No more ridiculous caveats on every policy and speech just to appease a right-wing media. No more neurotic ducking and diving to keep the outer extremes on-side.

Brexit was a rubbish idea. It was heavily sold by charlatans. It has failed. Corrective action is long overdue. I do not know what shape that corrective action will take but it needs to be immediate and sincere. And with a long-term perspective in mind.

POST: The next generation have the right idea Gen Z leads drive to reverse Brexit in new poll on EU referendum | The Independent

[1] https://angeljoyblue.com/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-election-brady-confidence-letters-tory-b2612966.html

New Government. New Political Landscape

Just imagine rating water companies or rail companies with four just simple categories. I think the term “Requires improvement” would star very often.

Imagine rating politicians with single epithets, or maybe we do. Good (oh dear, I’ve used one word) to see the indefensible is being deleted by the new UK Government. Measuring performance requires a subtly that was entirely lacking. Schools and teachers deserved better.

It doesn’t take much to find an Ofsted rating[1] of “Good” for a school. Then, reading on, it becomes evident that the school in question was last inspected four years ago. So, one word becomes either a loud advertising slogan or the sword of Damocles hanging over a school. The inspection measurement system was as subtle as some rants on social media. It’s wise that the Government has taken swift action to remove these simplistic flags.

What this tells me is that opposition Conservatives have learned nothing from their defeat in this year’s UK General Election. The fact that they’re standing-up to defend their earlier position on this subject is dumb.

Here we are in September. Time has moved quickly, or it has given that appearance. It’s a reminder that earlier in the year there was a high expectation that the General Election would be called about now. Just goes to show that predicting the future is a mighty difficult business.

Today, Parliament gets back to work. The summer recess comes to an end. The House of Commons will settle down in its new composition. Half of its members are new to the job. Lots of new names will pop-up in the media as spokespersons for this and that. New stories will be written.

We can have hope that a more rational and deliberative politics emerges. Ever the optimist, I think that we may, at least, have six months of positive hustle and bustle as new agendas develop. The new Government will be keen to get as much done as possible before any opposition forms into something effective.

It’s that season of seaside speeches and conference halls packed with activist either celebrating or commiserating. It’s likely to be an exceptional year for the traditional British party conference. Not that the occasions will change the political landscape. More that these gatherings of the faithful will reinforce the echoes and ripples coming from July’s election.

I don’t pity the Conservative Party. Their situation is entirely of their own making. To see a national political party lose 251 seats in one go is unusual, even with a FPTP electoral system. Stepping from holding the leavers of power in Government to relative oblivion is tough.

I wish the newly assembled 650 Members of Parliament well. I’m sure we all do. Let’s hope that the foolishness and turmoil of the past decade can be rapidly consigned to the history books.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/education/inspections-and-performance-of-education-providers

Free Speech or Unregulated Chaos?

Twitter grew to a global scale. It didn’t make money. It was a social media success but a commercial mess or, at least, that’s how a lot of people saw it. Its snappy short text became the playground for people pushing press releases and journalists seeking immediate printable lines. On top of the professional users were a mountain of commentators that ranged from the highly credible and reliable to the outlandish crazies promoting their every possible madness.

For whatever reason it caught the attention of Elon Musk. He has a numerous selection of descriptions ranging from wry businessman to futurist visionary. There’s no doubt he’s a risk taker who has an uncanny ability to come up smiling where others would likely have collapsed in bankruptcy or chaos.

Reports of “X”, as it is known now, are that Musk sees it as a platform for free speech. There’s an absolutism about this mandate. Although there’s legislative obligations in most countries that put some boundaries around what’s called “free speech” the platform X has become one that pushes at the boundaries.

Generally, moderate opinions don’t stir-up controversy. So called “mainstream” factual reporting can be boring and somewhat dry. What seems to trigger a lot of activity are opinions that are “extreme”. That is often extreme in the political sense from the left and the right. Tapping into the popularity of populism – if that makes any sense. Polarisation if it doesn’t.

As a platform for legitimate political views, however disagreeable, there’s not so much to complain about the openness of a lightly moderated space. Through history public spaces have been created for people to vent their views[1]. However, this is not done without regulation on conduct.

Where free spaces get extremely toxic is the riotous spread of misinformation. It’s one thing to have strong socialist or liberal views or hard conservative views but when views are presented as based on facts when they are not[2], and expressions are intended to create aggressive responses, there’s a line of unacceptability that has been crossed.

I am taking the view that today’s X is not a place for a reputable organisation or person. It’s not that social media platforms are intrinsically bad. No, it’s the way that they are managed. My observation is that there is a connection between the mindless riots of recent days in England and the lack of attention to civilised regulation of certain digital platforms. It’s a question of both written regulation and its consistent implementation.

This situation is recoverable. Putting digital social media back into a good shape for the public to conduct a dialogue about the issue of the day will require effort from its owners and governments across the globe. Is there a willingness to step up and act? Let’s see. Surely these subjects need urgent action.

[1] https://www.royalparks.org.uk/visit/parks/hyde-park/speakers-corner

[2] https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/5/20/23730607/elon-musk-conspiracy-twitter-texas-shooting-bellingcat-taylor-lorenz-psyops

New Day

The UK’s recent elections saw a surge in candidates and new political forces, challenging voters to make informed choices.

We had a surfeit of manifestos that said, this is what we will do if you give us power. Today, we have a stronger commitment, in the form of a speech, saying this is what we will do now you have you given us power. You can’t say you haven’t been warned. Or more positively, at least someone is focusing on the issues that are of concern rather than the nonsense of the preceding administration.

Democracy is about choosing. For the next 5-years a choice has been made. OK, that’s assuming there’s no calamities that bring the new Labour Government to its knees.

At this moment, please give a thought to those who made that national democratic choice possible. I know, I was one of them. 4,515 candidates[1] stood for election to the UK’s Parliament in July 2024. In 2019, there were 3,327 candidates who stood in the General Election. So, this year the crop of candidates was much bigger and thus choice wider. No constituency in the UK had fewer than five candidates standing.

This crop of candidates is to fill 650 seats in the House of Commons (HoCs)[2]. That’s using the word “seat” to mean Parliamentary constituency. Which there are not on the green benches. The HoC chamber cannot accommodate all the Members of Parliament (MPs) that are elected. It’s rather a strange situation in modern times.

More candidates and more volatility. A lot of the strong political ties that people have exhibited in former generations have been broken. In future the UK’s electorate must put more effort into deciding who to vote for on polling day. We see a move in political forces that is new.

I salute you. All 3,865 candidates who have plenty of time to reflect on their experience. Yes, there were a small cohort of eccentrics, but they didn’t get the news coverage that they once did. The Official Monster Raving Loony Party raised twenty-two candidates.

Local identity did play a part. There was a Yorkshire Party, Lincolnshire Independents Lincolnshire First candidate, Portsmouth Independent Party South Devon Alliance, and a sprinkling of similar others.

Since 1985. the deposit in elections to the HoCs has been £500. This is only refunded if the election candidate gets more than 5% of the votes cast. I don’t yet know how many of the 3,865 candidates lost their deposits.

The loss of a deposit by a candidate maybe regarded as an embarrassment. I don’t think it is at all. It takes a certain kind of resolve to put yourself up in front of the electorate. Regardless of the outcome that commitment ought to be applauded. It’s certain; not free of costs in respect of the individual candidate. I’d defend having a deposit as one means of preventing abuse of the electoral system. That said, it should never be higher than it is now and maybe the threshold ought to be halved to 2.5%.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/who-stood-in-the-2024-general-election/

[2] https://members.parliament.uk/parties/commons

Speaking

Politics without passion is like a food without taste. The ancient Greeks sensed this a long time ago. Aristotle and his followers had a way of describing how a speaker should win over an audience. Let’s face it that’s one big part of a politicians aims.

It’s no good at all standing there and saying: we’ve got some fantastic politics, and our values are your values. If no one is listening, you can be the best thing since sliced bread and nothing much happens. I’ve seen a lot of good people who shout in the dark.

The capability to persuade an audience by whatever legal means puts politician A above politician B. It’s not just innate ability although, for those who have it, that is a great asset.

So, here’s the educational bit. It’s certainly something I keep in mind however bad at it I may be. To appeal to an audience, and thus persuade, three different spots need to be hit: logos, ethos, and pathos[1].

As a professional engineer, I know the first one of these categories well. It’s good solid sound logic. It’s the use of reason to construct an agreement. It’s the favourite of technocrats. It’s the 2 and 2 equals 4. Because of the power of logic, it tends to be elevated to the number one tool in the speaker’s toolbox. PowerPoint slide after PowerPoint slide.

The problem is that this approach doesn’t work when the audience is a general one. Brexit is a perfect example. So many of the arguments against Brexit were framed in terms of economic costs and benefits. Logical, rational, sensible and supported by evidence. As it turned out addressing the head and not the heart was not sufficient.

Next on the list of three, Ethos is all about credibility. It comes from the simple question; why should I listen to this person? Is the speaker truthful? It even comes down to simple appearance – do the look the part? Like it or not, I’m not going to be inclined to listen to a politician on a podium sporting a Micky Mouse tee-shirt, wearing clown shoes and mumbling bad poetry. There’s a normal expectation that a credible individual will be polished and professional.

And so, to the last on the list. Pathos is multifaceted. I may talk of music or poetry. Those who can speak with language that evokes strong feelings. Being able to shift the emotions of an audience by evoking beliefs and values can be extremely powerful.

This one is dangerous too. It can tap into prejudices and stir-up destructive as well as constructive passions. If we have a lesson from this electoral cycle, it’s that the overuse of emotional rhetoric in a civilised society needs to be restrained. It’s for each speaker to carefully consider how the message they are sending will be received.

Politics without empathy and passion is dull and unworkable. But exciting public passion beyond a certain point has a cost. The cry for social justice or the anger at a perceived stupidity must be recognised. Overplaying emotion for political gain. Demonising an opponent with vivid words of hate. This is path to destruction. A path to be avoided. A time to stop.

[1] https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item35402.pdf

Rethinking the House of Lords: Toward a Balanced and Democratic Approach

Good to hear that there’s a prospect of House of Lords reform in next week’s Kings speech. Change is on the agenda.

It’s astonishing that “hereditary” is a valid qualification for the job as a legislator. I’ve nothing against the individuals involved. Especially those who try to do the best they can. Put all that to one side, there’s a huge gulf between what’s normal in normal life and what’s normal in the Place of Westminster. It’s time to consider merit as more important than who your parents were.

The removal of hereditary peers should be just a first step. One of the most egregious unfairnesses is that way the HoL gets topped-up with political cronies a regular basis. We’ve institutionalised political tribalism in the second chamber. Ennobling people for dubious reasons has become a habit of Prime Ministers. Making contributions to political Party funds should not be a ticket to the HoLs.

There’s the religious element too. Whereas there’s a lot to be said for a level or moral guidance to be given to Peers there’s little justification for them to have votes in the HoL. I’m not denying the important part region plays in many people’s lives. What I am saying is that the laws that affect every citizen shouldn’t be shaped by a small cohort of clerics. Two countries have religious clerics in places of legislative power, and they are UK and Iran. That doesn’t sit well with me, and no doubt most people.

One change maybe controversial given that it smacks of discrimination and that is the setting of an age threshold. If Peers are given a compulsory retirement at the age of 80, it may meet an objective of getting the overall number of Peers down. What disconcerting is the implication that beyond the age of 80 a Peer’s potential contribution is less valuable.

I don’t agree that the compulsory retirement age for the HoL should be set at the state pension age. For some people age does mark a dimming of their intellect but for others they can be as sharp as a pin. The only easy option is a fixed threshold, but it should be a temporary measure.

Ideally, the size of the HoL should be fixed. Ideally, the size of both chambers should be similar. Not just because that number line-up but because the political weight should be set closer to a balance. I do assume in this formula that every Peer is a working Peer.

It’s been pointed out that in its current state the HoL makes it the second largest political chamber in the world. It’s reached ridiculous proportions for a country of our size.

Modest changes can only be a start. There’s the real need for permanent restructuring. Parliament’s second chamber must be replaced with a democratic upper house. One model would be an elected upper house with two members elected per UK region based on current/proposed metro mayoral regions or former regions used for electing MEPs.

Even the chamber’s name must go. It’s not good that we have legislators lording over us. Those sitting on the red benches are not superior beings. They are privileged. One would hope for them to be humble given that great privilege. Afterall they should be there to serve us. To serve the country.

Rapid

Such a rapid change. In days we go from one governmental regium to another. The government of the UK has changed. It’s now dramatically different from what it was only a couple of days ago. It’s not overstating the case to say dramatic. On a relatively modest percentage of the overall national vote the Labour Party has been handed all the leavers of power.

The UK’s main electoral system is not proportional. It tends to exaggerate and distort performance. Lifting those who do well in the national vote numbers but suppressing those who are supported by smaller overall percentages. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats, who have always been in favour of a proportional representation electoral system, have an approximate match between the number of seats won and the number of votes cast across the country.

Sticking with the positives, this rapid change does mean policy resets are possible. One significant example is the immediate scrapping of the policy mess that the previous government had got itself into over immigration.

Accepting a fresh start has a upside. However, the difficulty that can present itself is the challenge to continuity. Lots of new faces with new responsibilities. Lots of people learning the ropes. One answer to that challenge is to say that the civil service provides a seamless continuity. The mandarins in Whitehall guide the ship of State through the transition. Not only that but many of the people coming into power have been preparing for this opportunity for a long time.

The difficulty is that the mismatch between the national percentages of the General Election vote and the number of Westminster seats held is there for all to see. It’s a stark indicator of the reality of people’s wishes verses the outcome of a process.

I was a counting agent standing in a sports hall until the early morning totting-up an estimate of the vote for a political party. Pen in hand watching officers carefully unfold paper ballots. In a world of smart phones and tablets there’s something very retro about looking at piles of black and white paper for hours.

One aspect of First Past The Post (FPTP) is the theoretical simplicity of the counting process. Naturally, it’s far from simple. One cross, in one box is well within the capability of every kind of voter. However, it’s crude in terms of what it says about the voter’s views. It forces everyone to make stark choices. There’s no accommodation of preference. Say, you are a person who’s essentially conservative or socialist but can’t stand that Party in its current form, you are forced to leap to vote, if you vote at all, for a political candidate that may not be your natural choice.

So, society ought to ask itself, do we value the result of the electoral process most? Or do we value the expression of the individual preference the most? There’s an inevitability to the answer to that question, if the horizon set is a long one. Where so much of what we now do is addressed by algorithms designed to distil our individual preferences how can we stick with a paper based last century electoral system that ignores preference?

Change will come one day. The difficulty is that if the UK’s FPTP electoral system offers no incentive to the winning Party to change it, so we will be bound to stick with it. Well, at least for the next few years.

Next Day

It’s that moment when I pile-up used elastic bands, I know the election is over. The recycling bin is full, and I must remember to put it out on Sunday night. Sorting out one or two mementos to keep. Saying “Thank You” to a few important people. Watching the analysis of the results.

The UK General Election results are declared. Once again, everyone knows the lay of the land. That national barometer of politics has indicated the weather for the next few years. I never say, next 5-years, given what has happened in the recent past.

Has the election’s outcome sorted out how we feel and think about the big issues facing us? Up to a small point. It’s reality. The issues that faced us yesterday are now going to be sitting in the in-tray of the incoming administration. What we can hope for, is that the administration will be competent, or at least a great deal more competent that its predecessor.

Having been up until well past 3am, my facilities for making insightful comments are somewhat lacking. There is a headful of moments that have flashed by in the last 24 hours. Delightful, taxing and slightly strange moments. Like the person who said – don’t worry I am going to vote. I’ll be there tomorrow. As if the polling stations are always open if you will them to be so.

There’s also this embedded expectation that a candidate should think the same way a resident thinks. I know it’s often labelled representative democracy. But if every candidate thinks the same way as every one of over 70,000 individuals, then they are going to have a mental overload the like of which is unimaginable. Frankly, we don’t have a representative democracy. Members of Parliament are not delegates. Nevertheless, the basic expectation sticks.

For a Liberal Democrat, like me the evening and morning was full of reasons to cheer. So, many constituencies turned away from the Conservatives and towards the Liberal Democrats. I will be, in respect of one set of figures, downbeat. Looking at the aggregate numbers of votes for each political party across the whole country there’s a message. It’s not a nice one.

Just as in France the right-wing populists are clocking up votes so are the same types of people clocking them up in the UK. For once the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral systems has had a relatively positive impact. Spread thinly across England, the populists haven’t been able to win a lot of parliamentary seats. The Greens are in the same place. The difference between the two is that the right-wing populists have accumulated more national vote share. That’s scary.

One other notable thought is about nationalism. Given the way the poll has panned out, nationalists are going to be on the back foot for a long time. The United Kingdom isn’t in jeopardy. Their leavers of influence are somewhat reduced.

Now, I’m fumbling around trying to get back to where I was before this summer election was called. Bet Sunak regrets his choice of dates. All those things that got put-off can no longer be put-off. Time to put out the trash and get back to “normal”.